Can we get rid of the ads with ridiculously scantily clad (or sometimes not even clad at all, just turned the other way) women please? There are 13 year olds on this website... and 16 year olds such as myself who'd prefer that my attention could be kept on the forums and not the hormone-induced interest in a hot lady on a banner to my right.

Can we get rid of the ads with ridiculously scantily clad (or sometimes not even clad at all, just turned the other way) women please? There are 13 year olds on this website... and 16 year olds such as myself who'd prefer that my attention could be kept on the forums and not the hormone-induced interest in a hot lady on a banner to my right.

Regadless about what you hear, LucasForums.com's owners do have the last say about the advertising. Since they own the site, they also have the rights to pull ads that are not appropriate.

When it comes to the owners' ethics, I do not think anyone can speak for them. LucasForums needs the advertising to pay the bills. LucasForums is free to do whatever they want, and the guests are here under their freewill.

During my break period on Friday, I had my web browser open with LucasForums. My professor thought the site was cool, but he even thought the ads were not appropriate. His logic was based upon one simple factor: Lucas & Star Wars selling sex. Personally, I know that is not the case, but the ads do have a sense of sexuality that should not be connected to a Lucas name. One could conclude that Lucas sells Star wars through the use of sensual advertising. Since this site is not owned by Lucas, the ownership connection cannot be made.

I guess the questions are:

Should a site that is geared to 100% Lucas anything contain ads that sell sex? Should a site where people between the ages of 10 to infinity visit have ads that show females as meat? Should the Lucas community hold LucasForums to a higher standard of ethics?

Who knows?

If I owned this type of website, I would edit out the ads that conflict with my ethics. Its all about what type of ethics the LucasForum owner's have. They are the only ones who can answer that question.

To me, it's a simple deal. Sex ads cause more money to be spilled into the budget of LF, period. Tja, and what jmac said. Gee. Girls have vaginas, boys have penises. Some have both. Get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambrose

16 year olds such as myself who'd prefer that my attention could be kept on the forums and not the hormone-induced interest in a hot lady on a banner to my right.

So (A) why don't you just do that and focus on the forum? (C) Additionally, in order to help you with keeping your focus maintained, you could make use of ad-blockers, and in case of nasty UGO imagery (which provides almost 99% if not 100% of nudity here) deactivate flash for your browser. Oh, (B) just make the window smaller so the ads are not visible.

Well, the point isn't to block the ads since that defeats their purpose.
Ray, while your anatomy lesson is generally accurate, there's a difference between showing it for anatomy's sake or art, and highly sexual content, and there are a zillion adult sites where adults can meet their needs to ogle a female. The ads obviously aren't there for science or art. There's nothing wrong with limiting sexual content on a site that attracts children.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Well, the point isn't to block the ads since that defeats their purpose.

For me it is the point, as I generally don't like ads, especially not those UGO ones, naked or not, these are just stupid.

Also there is nothing wrong if parents make sure their kids don't get exposed to sexual-content-ads or other ads. Why should a 12 year old handle ads for The Abdominator, The Push-Stepper, The Step-Pusher, The Super Diet Formula X, Extended Ultra X Diet Formula, The Evangelic Muslims Church, and my favourite: Barbie.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with limiting sexual content on a site that attracts children.

Yaaauup. I guess that is exactly why we have threads with this topic like every 3 months, and every time it goes: "We are not responsible for those ads." I'd like to translate that as follows: "They pay enough so we don't really wanna care."

I don't know what UGO is paying, but it must be enough to keep LF from switching to companies advertising with more PG-13 compatible stuff. See, it is not *me* who says LF is PG-13, it is LF itself. But the advertising I am seeing every time I come here is clearly NOT rated PG-13. 13 year old children don't need to "see more of Laura" or "zoom in for celebrity exclusive". The problem ain't nudity, it is stupidity.

Since I visit LF I've seen no single DELL/intel/nVidia/ATI ad here. No OS ads, no Game ads, no Flakey Flake ads, no McDonalds ads, no Google ads, no Denim ads, no Sneaker ads, no Sports ads, no PS/XBOX/DS ads, no HiFi ads, no multimedia ad, no magazine (tech, scifi, comics ) ads. Just crappy UGO things like "see more Laura and other", "vote for miss entertainment", "oops she did it again time machine", aaaand "celebrity wardrobe malfunction".

I mean.. In a Sci-Fi based forum with tons of young computer users who like gaming, music, tech, fashion.

FAIL, I say.

Oh, and by my anatomy lesson, I was addressing this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambrose

and 16 year olds such as myself who'd prefer that my attention could be kept on the forums and not the hormone-induced interest in a hot lady on a banner to my right.

Why bother us if he's got a problem in admitting that he likes the female anatomy?

Actually, the lower of the two side ads does display Google ads and those are usually a lot more relevant than the UGO one above as they're targetted with adsense. However, as far as I'm aware the Google ads continually generate less revenue than the UGO ads -- go figure.

Yes, few of us will deny that having the sexually themed ads is a little distasteful, but unfortunately every time we've asked UGO for them to be removed they've ended up reappearing some time later. Perhaps another chat is needed with UGO, and this thread will probably motivate those who deal with it to do so. Your feedback isn't just ignored, contrary to what Ray Jones thinks.

As for blocking ads, please don't discuss that here. While everybody's free to do it, the fact is that running LucasForums (and the LFNetwork) takes multiple dedicated servers, huge volumes of bandwidth, and hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Without ad revenue the network simply couldn't be sustained, so unfortunately we can't really condone blocking the ads.

No it ain't. On 05-09-2007, 02:21 PM CET, when resizing the browser the first thing to dissappear were the right hand ads (I think when the forum page reached the in the usercp selected screen size). Now they "stay" considerably longer than before, I think it's until the forum width hits 640 pixels. I checked it with several browsers and OSs. I have no "proof" though. But I know it was working when I wrote that post, else I wouldn't have posted it (and I checked it back then too).

There must be a variable on your end that's caused it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that nothing has been changed in the templates between now and then, having just checked the administration logs and seen that the last change was made on April 29th, and that was by me and completely unrelated to the ads.

The way it's always worked is to resize everything, with the ad visible as it's part of the page, until it reaches just under 800x600. At this point the top menu should hit the LucasForums logo and stop it getting any smaller, and the browser window will start to cut off. The only thing that could cause the cut-off to occur sooner is a large image being present in one of the posts or the header.